MOHANAGA Vs. RAMALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Naik N R, counsel for the appellant at the time o f admission.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff . In her suit for partition, O.S .No.985/2017 , on the file o f the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, she filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the properties. The Trial Court declined to grant temporary in junction finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima-facie case as the facts disclose that the plaintiff herself has stated that on 26.10 .2004, there came into existence a registered partition deed among the parties. Alleging fraud etc., the plaintiff has sought re-opening of the partition.

(3.) It is quite evident that 13 years after the partition, the suit came to be filed. So the bonafides in seeking re-partition is doubtful. In this view, if the injunction is declined by the Trial Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order.